Talk:USS Enterprise (brig)
Personnally, I think this page has to much unrelated information, I believe it should look something like...: ----- The brig USS ''Enterprise'' was a sailing ship in the 19th century. The senior staff of the created this ship on the holodeck, and used it as the location of Lieutenant Worfs promotion to Lieutenant Commander. ( ) Background The Brig Enterprise was portrayed on by the Lady Washinton. She is the official Tall Ship Ambassador of the State of Washington and can also be seen as the "HMS Interceptor" in of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl". External links * USS Enterprise (1799) at Wikipedia * The Lady Washington The above is probably not entirly accurate, but is a close example of what I think this page should like. Opinions? Comments? -AJHalliwell 06:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC) * I agree, this is much cleaner. AmdrBoltz 06:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC) Yes. Seeing that none of the ship's history and data was included in any sort of Trek reference, the article should be as bare bones as is whats shown above -- similiar to the HMS Enterprize article. In addition, if indeed this ship was a "USS Enterprise" the article title/qualifier will need to changed to something more appropriate, such as USS Enterprise (brig) or USS Enterprise (sailing ship). As it stands now, "USS Enterprise (Brig Enterprise)" is awefully redundant. --Gvsualan 06:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC) :Agreed. The ship was never explicitly shown to be part of the "USS Enterprise" lineage, nor does the Encyclopedia (or any official publications) give it a "USS" designation, so including the extra info would also be inaccurate. I support moving this article to simply Enterprise (sailing ship) and accepting AJHalliwell's edits (removing the Wikipedia link to the 1799 Enterprise). SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 08:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC) :: Is there some grand ceremony we have to perform at this point or can I move the above rendition of the article over to Enterprise (sailing ship)? --Gvsualan 09:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC) :::I support the move... if anyone has any issue with it we can discuss it here, but I don't think there's any valid argument for keeping the article at the present name. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 16:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC) As the author of the original article and a history buff, i've always prefered having more information than not, especially information not available from the series as i use this site to find out more about interesting minutiae that was briefly touched on such as the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and the Space Shuttle Enterprise. secondly, the brig enterprise is historically a real and actual ship of the united states navy (a "united states ship") and fully deserving of the name "USS Enterprise". "brig enterprise" was her "official number" back in the days when the navy only needed to list type of boat "brig" and name "enterprise" to differentiate boats on the navy list just as USS Enterprise (CVN-65) tells us that she is a ship of the united states navy "uss" named enterprise "enterprise", a aircraft carrier "cv" nuclear powered "n" and hull number 65 "65" on the navy list of aircraft carriers. the uss constitution, for example wasn't given a number (ix-21) until until 1941. i don't know what encyclopedia smokedetector47 is refering to but i think the united states congress and the dictionary of american naval fighting ships should know if some boat actually existed and what her proper designation should be. i believe it might be as at least as reputable as some obscure text published by a random trekkie who has spent his life combing through paramount's vaults looking for that new insite into the assistant set decorator's mind when he place a specific flower on ensign jones' nightstand. as much as i am a stickler for aesthetics, "cleaner" as a reason for editing information to the point willful withholding of information is wrong. i have edited the page down as much as i believe possible while doing the history of the ship her distingusished commanders justice and instead referred interested readers to external links for futher information. :Yes, however you are missing the point. Look at your own examples (USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and Enterprise (OV-101))...clean and pure Star Trek based articles with very little extraneous information, which USS Enterprise (Brig Enterprise)/temp is otherwise seeping with. History buffin' aside, the above "cleaner" rendition of the article, created by AJHalliwell at the beginning of this talk page, is still the acceptable choice for a Memory Alpha-style article. If you are interested in writing more information than necessary, then perhaps it would be wiser to contribute over at the Wikipedia website. Otherwise the history of the ship as it is presented is irrelevant to the "Star Trek universe". Mention of the Quasi War, the Tripoli War, the Washington Navy Yard, the War of 1812, Stephen Decatur, Jr or William Burrows and several other historical points found written in USS Enterprise (Brig Enterprise)/temp ever mentioned anywhere in Star Trek, much less, in Generations. --Gvsualan 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) please use preview first : Thats good to know. But in this case, it is borderline irrelevant, as the USS Enterprise (Brig Enterprise)/temp will likely be deleted once this is resolved, and therefore removing all "load" on the database. --Gvsualan 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :: Point taken. AmdrBoltz 06:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC) merged talk page On the name of this article -- i was going to suggest USS Enterprise (Brig), since it really seems redundant to disambiguate it with its own name over again! The Enterprise that was the NX-01 Enterprise is not disambiguated Enterprise (NX-01 Enterprise), is it? But i was reading the DANFS definition and the term "brig" isn't even used -- it is described as a "schooner". Any reason that a different terminology is used here? I'd like to see the correct one used, and eliminate the redundant naming. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :This was discussed and (I believe) resolved (at one point) in Talk:Enterprise (sailing ship)/temp. --Gvsualan 07:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::So is the temp page being enacted or should it be deleted? I'd still ike to simplify the name to USS Enterprise (Brig) (or USS Enterprise (1799) as wikipedia does)-- while i accept the registry exists exactly as desribed as "Brig Enterprise" on the naval books, imagine if the USS Enterprise on Star Trek were registered as the "Heavy Cruiser Enterprise" without her familiar NCC-1701 -- would we create the article as USS Enterprise (heavy cruiser Enterprise) or would we opt for the more intuitive USS Enterprise (heavy cruiser). I still think the shortened versions would be more appropo. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::So why "sailing ship" ? just because i said "less descriptive" i don't think being this vague is called for -- this could describe a handful of other Enterprises. The two suggestions i put above seem valid as being specific to the ship without being overdescriptive, my original concern with "Brig Enterprise". -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I moved it to this page, as it was what SmokeDetector and I, and the person who originally devised the name on the article's reference list, agreed upon. SmokeDetector had fairly sound reasoning for the name it currently has..that is without the "USS". It is, again, mentioned in the aforementioned archive. --Gvsualan 07:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Well, Wikipedia uses the USS and has a more sound naming convention, specifying the ship being discussed. The prefix aside, if there are no objections, I'd like to see the article moved to a better title than Enterprise (sailing ship). I understand that everybody has fairly sound reasoning about things, but I hope that you understand my concern about disambiguating this -- "Enterprise (sailing ship)" describes many more than one vessel -- therefore it is counterintuitive to have it as the title of an article about one vessel. "(sailing ship)" is a disambiguation that does not disambiguate. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC) If you are going with this move, wouldn't it be more accurate to follow through with the wikipedia name and call it USS Enterprise (1799)? --Gvsualan 08:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :If you think it would be a good idea i'd be more than welcome to see it happen -- i wasn't sure why it had been removed in the first place. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :: I think it was removed because there was nothing canonly established about this ship, either it being a "USS" Enterprise or it being the "1799" ship that is has now officially been dubbed. Basically just that is was a generic sailing ship named "Enterprise". Otherwise, I'm still not comfortable with all the non-Trek info regarding the Quasi war or the Tripoli war and the Washington navy yard references; it should be more generic and streamline like is its' sister article: HMS Enterprize. --Gvsualan 09:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::All this talk on various pages, i totally didnt catch that. I wanted the name to be specific to the ship being described in "Generations" -- and I thought that the reason we were discussing using the temp article or the original copyvio was because that information had been verified. If we don't know that they meant the 1799 ship, perhaps we shouldn't use it at all What's our source for this? What were the producer's intentions for that Enterprise? I might have caught on to this sooner, but i was writing on the appropriate talk page while everyone else was discussing the temp article on that talk page. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 09:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC) : Appropriate page or not (I didn't start it), there was a lot of chatter on the temp page that was hard not to miss in the 'recent chances'. Nevertheless, the script merely says: :::EXT. SAILING VESSEL - DAY ::A nineteenth-century three-masted sailing vessel (about the size of a frigate) is hove-to and sitting in the water gently rocking. Across the stern of the ship, we can see the name ENTERPRISE picked out in gold letters. :Neither StarTrek.com nor the encyclopedia (to my knowledge) expand on this -- and for all intents and purposes, and all coincidences aside, it might as well be any everyday generic holodeck recreation of a sailing vessel with the name "Enterprise" on it. Nothing more, nothing less. Hence, the previously established Enterprise (sailing ship). (I still prefer the article variation written at the top of this page, in terms of content.) --Gvsualan 09:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :: Maybe the new title should simply reflect the simulation nature of the ship... Enterprise (sailing ship) can disambiguate to HMS Enterprize, this article, and also include info about Archer's ready room drawing; HMS Enterprize can stay as a useful redirect... I just can't think of an appropriate primary title. Enterprise (sailing ship simulation) seems too clunky... :: However, the information that insinuates this ship and the real 1799 Enterprise are one in the same should really be removed or at the very least, placed as a background note. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 15:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::And just for discussion's sake, the Encyclopedia says this was a 19th century vessel and a frigate, not a brig. http://enterprisehistory.home.att.net/sailships/faq.html -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 15:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::: So essentially the same as the scripts brief description. With that said: Enterprise (frigate), as in the three-masted sailing warship-type frigate. --Gvsualan 16:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC) whatever the script says, frigate is incorrect, but then again we all know how many changes a script can go through before it's put on screen. the boat used, the lady washington, is a brig. a brig is a two masted vessel, square rigged on both masts (as opposed to a schooner which is fore and aft on both). a frigate is a small three masted ship, square rigged on all three masts. the hms surprise in master and commander is a frigate. ship is also incorrect as ship in sailing parlance refers to a fully rigged ship, or a vessel with three or more masts, all square. if we're going to stick to canon, the vessel featured was a brig, not a ship or a frigate. incidentally, in response to Captain Mike K. Bartel, she started out as a schooner but was rerigged as a brig in 1812 (danfs article, 6th paragraph). Christie's Description I just browsed through the Christie's description and found Lot #86 "British Sailing Ship Uniforms" and within the text the HMS Enterprise is mentioned. I had a look into The Art of Star Trek and the uniform sketches are labelled with "1812" there. However the page states it is a US Navy vessel ... -- Kobi 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) HMS/USS Wasn't this the HMS Enterprise? --From TrekkyStar Live Long and Prosper 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC) :The holographic ship was never given a prefix. Simply "Enterprise". So... no. Not the HMS Enterprise. -- Sulfur 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC) ::On close inspection, the ship was given a prefix. At the beginning of the holodeck scene, one can see the name of the ship on some kind of structure on the deck of the vessel. It clearly reads "USS Enterprise"... Move the page then? --Jörg 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC) ::: I dunno, I might need to see a little more proof before I am convinced.... --Alan 20:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)